Hold on tight

[Mark]

News outlets are reporting that the CPA intends to execute an arrest warrant for Moqtada al-Sadr. This can only end badly.

Latest conspiracy theory floating around the net is that the U.S., despite Bush's statement today to the contrary, is actually looking to waffle on the handover date using violence as an excuse. So, not only are they failing to get a grip on the Triangle, they're provoking the South and Baghdad as well by pressuring al-Sadr. Personally, I find this theory untenable if only because it's election season, and staying does Bush more harm than good. But, maybe leaving the place in ruin does even more harm than that. Anyway, I'm struggling to understand the CPA's motivation for the pressure at this time.

[dhyatt]

News outlets are reporting that the CPA intends to execute an arrest warrant for Moqtada al-Sadr. This can only end badly.

Latest conspiracy theory floating around the net is that the U.S., despite Bush's statement today to the contrary, is actually looking to waffle on the handover date using violence as an excuse. So, not only are they failing to get a grip on the Triangle, they're provoking the South and Baghdad as well by pressuring al-Sadr. Personally, I find this theory untenable if only because it's election season, and staying does Bush more harm than good. But, maybe leaving the place in ruin does even more harm than that. Anyway, I'm struggling to understand the CPA's motivation for the pressure at this time.

Why not take it for what it is? al-Sadr is a self serving thug (as are most religious extremists) who has purposefully been inciting violence instead of working for peace. I don't care what the conspiracy theorists think. Anybody who even tacitly supports murder and mutilation of anybody while relishing in the cheers of a mad throng needs to go. (they were guarding a food convoy for Iraqis for gods sake) Hopefully, sensible Iraqis will find him and kill him. BTW - Bush announced today he's standing firm on the June 30th handover.

[Mark]

Why not take it for what it is? al-Sadr is a self serving thug (as are most religious extremists) who has purposefully been inciting violence instead of working for peace. I don't care what the conspiracy theorists think. Anybody who even tacitly supports murder and mutilation of anybody while relishing in the cheers of a mad throng needs to go. (they were guarding a food convoy for Iraqis for gods sake) Hopefully, sensible Iraqis will find him and kill him. BTW - Bush announced today he's standing firm on the June 30th handover.

No doubt he's self serving, but what politicians aren't? They all hope to craft societies in their vision; he is no different from Bush, Kerry, or anyone else in that regard. So, that alone isn't enough to condemn him.

And, playing devil's advocate for the moment, if a thug is someone that causes violence instead of working for peace, I wonder if the sitting American president qualifies too? He certainly didn't exhaust peaceful strategies prior the war in Iraq, whatever its merits may be, and has certainly caused much violence and suffering there. Perhaps being a thug, though, has something to do with not being able to command hundreds of billions of dollars to commit your crimes.

But, having said that, I have to fault al-Sadr as much as I do Bush for choosing violence over peace. It is right to condemn everyone that supports the use of violence for political ends. That really isn't the question here though. The question is that he commands the support of an increasingly large segment of an increasingly hostile population. Tensions in the country have been raised, but relatively stable, for the past several month. But, after the closing of his newspaper, the murder of the protestors the following day, and now this arrest warrant business it seems to be the worst possible way to engage the leading critic of the CPA, and path most likely to cause more violence.

It is the methods I question, not the merits of the claim. If ever more people are becoming disenchanted with the occupation, and there rises up a man that seems to guide the opposition there are at least two things one can do in resposne. At one extreme is that you engage the person in dialog, catalog what he sees as the deficits of the services you are providing, seek to understand what is leading him to violence, and do everything you can to remedy the situation. At the other extreme is you simply kill him. The U.S. position is tending towards the second rather than the first. There are, naturally, an infinite blend of options between the two, but insofar as the first generally attempts to treat positively the very legitimate issues raised by al-Sadr, it should be favored.

So, again, no doubt al-Sadr is to be condemned for tacitly supporting the violence. The response to that action is what I'm questioning, the timing and method of it seems so branzenly dangerous thatI can understand why some people might suspect the administration's reasons for doing so.

[johnb]

Nice to see you playing appeasement with Islamofascists terrorists Mark.

But, having said that, I have to fault al-Sadr as much as I do Bush for choosing violence over peace.

You are claiming a moral equivalence between Bush and a terrorist?

You have got to be kidding. Mark, do you believe Bush is no different than Osama and if so how exactly?

[Mark]

You are claiming a moral equivalence between Bush and a terrorist?

You have got to be kidding. Mark, do you believe Bush is no different than Osama and if so how exactly?

Both privileged sons of oil rich families, influenced by the more conservative elements of their respective societies, engaged in an ideological war with their enemies that seeks to keep their own safe from the tyranny of the other, in the name of God, while taking thousands of innocent lives.

They do sound somewhat alike, no?

Morally equivalent? Probably. But are they the same? No, no they're not. Bush, ostensibly, has the mandate of a free nation of people. Bin Laden does not enjoy that claim. So, in the realm of international politics, which feathers here into practical ethics, the situations are not entirely analogous, and Bush's position is, in at least that way, to be preferred.

However, in another view, we should not concern ourselves with the matter of who fired the first shot, as it were. That probably cannot be known, and discovering it would likely prove impossible. We might concern ourselves, then, with the matter of which of the two causes the other the most violence, and which of the two commands the greatest amount of resources with which he might stop it. The first question is up for debate, though the calculus doesn't look particularly good for either. The second question resolves decidedly against Bush and, in that regard, his position is the more lamentable, the more dangerous, and the more unjust.

[dhyatt]

Mark,
Do you believe Bush is trying to end the violence in the Middle East? Do you think the violence there will ever end short of democracy being in place? Do you think democracy is even possible given Islam's current level of "maturity"? In my mind, the effort in Iraq is justified or not depending on one's answers to those questions.

[Mark]

Mark,
Do you believe Bush is trying to end the violence in the Middle East? Do you think the violence there will ever end short of democracy being in place? Do you think democracy is even possible given Islam's current level of "maturity"? In my mind, the effort in Iraq is justified or not depending on one's answers to those questions.

Good questions, ones worth discussing. Let me treat them in order.

-Do you believe Bush is trying to end the violence in the Middle East?

I believe that he thinks he's trying, so it's really tough for me to say no to this. But, ultimately, I have to. Ending "violence in the Middle East" was not and is not the goal of any of the recent campaigns in that region. I think Bush, and U.S. administrations generally, look to ensure the opportunity for U.S. interests to be heard. When states or regions fail to be sufficiently receptive to them, and they can't defend themselves (that's a key factor) then the U.S. acts. Now, it is true that Saddam was exacting violence upon his own people, and we should all rightly celebrate that he can no longer do so. But, the U.S. still causes the needless suffering of many in that region, and has done so for a frustratingly long time. So, in conclusion, at best, I think Bush is selectively choosing certain areas where he may advanced the interests of the U.S. that happen to coincide with some tension, while ignoring the much larger systemic and geopolitical issues that are contributing to violence in the Middle East. Effectively, he's not trying very hard, if at all.

-Do you think the violence there will ever end short of democracy being in place?

About this I'm unsure. Perhaps the violence (we'd have to be clear what exactly violence means, though. I'm roughly equating it with international terrorism now) can end even in the presence of Islamic theocracies. Obviously I think a democratically oriented socialist state would probably be the most non-violent of all. What you're getting at though, and what I will agree with, is that the societies of the Middle East will have to become somewhat more open and liberal for there to be a lasting peace, either with themselves or with the rest of the world.

One thing I am sure of, however, (and that I found curious about the language you used in phrasing your question) is that democracies or more open societies simply aren't manufactured. One doesn't suddenly appear "in place" anywhere where it will last. This is why I am resistant to the type of nation building the the U.S. and global North typically undertakes. Societies must be sufficiently pluralistic and exhibit a broad range of community associations before democratic precepts will take hold. That process can rarely be forced with success. Somewhat ironically, though, I think Iraq is as good as candidate for democracy as any in the region, but it must be developed slowly, and more or less by themselves. The current U.S. intervetion, I find, will undermine the short to medium range prospects for a viable liberal state of Iraq.

- Do you think democracy is even possible given Islam's current level of "maturity"?

I'm split 50/50 on this one. Clearly there are some sufficiently plural and fairly liberal states that exist that are also majority Muslim. These tend not to be in the Middle East, however. That region in particular suffers from environmental conflict that exacerbates any religious or ethnic tensions that may exist. So, in the Middle East, I think it certainly possible, but perhaps not likely, for a more open society to emerge. More likely is that Islam itself, in that region, will undergo changes whereby it begins to divorce its political and theological teachings. In the long run, that can only be good.

I'm not sure I fully support your train of logic though... which is, best I can see it: Islam in the Middle East probably can't support a democracy now, It needs to support one to have peace, So Bush is right in installing a democracy because that's the road to peace. Well, maybe, maybe not. It doesn't necessarily follow that democracies make peaceful decisions, especially young ones. Nor is it clear what truly democratic Islam might look like. Most importantly though is that the underlying factor that Islam might have trouble supporting a democracy in its current state of maturity doesn't change whether or not the U.S. attempts to install one.

Anyway, I don't think the administration is sincere in its attempts to end the violence - we haven't even talked about Israel yet, either. Nor do I think a thrown together democratic state will succeed, or even be much safer... for anyone. Moreover, I think the current approach continues to undermine what chance of success the democratic process might have had in Iraq on its own. And, finally, Islam is not incompatible with peace, nor even with democracy, though it perhaps not yet in the position to embrace them. About that, however, we can do little and time will be our greatest asset.

[johnb]

More likely is that Islam itself, in that region, will undergo changes whereby it begins to divorce its political and theological teachings.

Can you give even one example of where this has ever occured without the installation of a secular dicatorship?

I'm reallly curious to hear how you theorize how this will occur and what measures the imagined "moderates" who would lead this change will defend themselves and this change from the rest of Islam.

How do you think a religion which codifies a political theology in it's foundational text will react to a challenge to it's supremacy?

[Mark]

More likely is that Islam itself, in that region, will undergo changes whereby it begins to divorce its political and theological teachings.

Can you give even one example of where this has ever occured without the installation of a secular dicatorship?

I'm reallly curious to hear how you theorize how this will occur and what measures the imagined "moderates" who would lead this change will defend themselves and this change from the rest of Islam.

How do you think a religion which codifies a political theology in it's foundational text will react to a challenge to it's supremacy?

The five largest states with majority Muslim populations and some forms of Islamic law are, in order, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt. India is in between Indonesia and Pakistan in terms of sheer number, about 125 million, but they comprise only 12% of the population.

Indonesia is undeniably democratic, and as the largest Muslim state in the world, it is an example that theological concepts do not necessarily have to dictate political outcomes.

Pakistan is much more insulated than is Indonesia, though it is not without its moderate elements. It has a reasonably tolerant society though its court system does rely too heavily on Islamic law.

Bangladesh is much more democratic than Pakistan, and seems quite plural given its state of underdevelopment. Development and class issues, most of the country is still agricultural, seem to take precedent over religious or ethnic issues.

Turkey is a remarkably plural society where a federal system quite effectively balances the demands of the more extreme Islamic groups, the more moderate Islamic groups and the combined other religious and ethnic groups.

Egypt, as I understand it, has a peculiar blend of legal systems that combines Islamic law with the common law of the West. Much autonomy is given to local administrative units, allowing for a degree of political freedom not had in some of the more repressive states. Religious based political parties are expressly illegal.

All that to say secular dictatorships are not the foundation of fairly democratic and plural societies in the largest Muslim states. I'm am admittedly quite unsure of the mechanism whereby this came to be. I suspect, however, that moderate Islamic states have and will develop in much the same path as moderate Christian states - that is, by the eventual disregard of an outmoded set of rules found in the each of their theological texts to be replaced by an ever more integrated, plural, and dynamic political body.

No doubt there will resistence to such moderation, I'm granting that. That is, however, a different thing than saying that moderation is incompatible with Islam itslef. That is patently false, as the above examples illustrate.

Also, it's curious that you seem to suggest that "installing" secular dictatorships may provide an answer. There has been at least one example, Iran, where the U.S. has overthrown a popularly elected government and installed a secular one that resulted in failure, even lead to a greater Islamic extremism. Democracy isn't easy and it can't be forced; time and time alone will tell of the success of the rest of the world in fostering it, not imposing it, in the Middle East.

[johnb]

"Indonesia is undeniably democratic, and as the largest Muslim state in the world, it is an example that theological concepts do not necessarily have to dictate political outcomes."

The Indonesian govenrment is corrupt and a democracy in only the most meaningless of definitions. It turns a blind eye towards Islamofascist terorists who are engaged in a war of what you leftists call cultural genocide against the Christian minority in that nation.

"Pakistan is much more insulated than is Indonesia, though it is not without its moderate elements. It has a reasonably tolerant society though its court system does rely too heavily on Islamic law."

Pakistan is a powder keg of Islamofascism. It is a terrorist sponsor, arming and training terrorists against India in the Kashmir. The next govenrment of Pakistan will either be another military dictatorship or a Taliban style theocracy. The nation is useful to us short term, long term it is a threat to regional stability and may very well initatiate a nuclear exchange with India. Which by the way, India, is a democratic state IN SPITE of the presence of 120+ million muslims.

"Turkey is a remarkably plural society where a federal system quite effectively balances the demands of the more extreme Islamic groups, the more moderate Islamic groups and the combined other religious and ethnic groups. "

As someone who has lived in Turkey I can tell you first off you are as wrong as you could be. The military will tolerate the Islamists to a point, once they push too a point the military considers too far they civilian government will be deposed, the Islamists rounded up and summarily executed and the Republic run through the Turkish General Staff. It has happened before it will happen again. While Attaturk despised Islam he was not above using Islam as a way to tap into Turks religious hostility towards his political rivals, namely the Greeks. Turkey has a long and despicable history of genocide and attempted genocide against non-Muslims.

"Egypt, as I understand it, has a peculiar blend of legal systems that combines Islamic law with the common law of the West."

You understand very little. Egypt has maintained the Shari'a mandated respression against non-Muslims inspite of their abolition from the legal code. Coptic Christians in Egypt are routinely persecuted and even murdered with impugnity. The government tolerates them only because of external pressure.

"I suspect, however, that moderate Islamic states have and will develop in much the same path as moderate Christian states - that is, by the eventual disregard of an outmoded set of rules found in the each of their theological texts to be replaced by an ever more integrated, plural, and dynamic political body."

That is not possible. The Koran and the haddith's mandate societal inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims. Christians can search long and hard for a command by Christ to slay unbelievers or otherwise take punitive action against them but he/she won't find it. Mohammed was explicit in his call for slaughter.

"That is, however, a different thing than saying that moderation is incompatible with Islam itslef. That is patently false, as the above examples illustrate."

You've illustrated nothing except the fact that you know little of Islam and the nations of the Islamic world. If by "moderation" we are to mean political, legal, and social equality between Muslims and non-Muslims in a Muslim majority state guarateed by law where the government actually enforces the law, moderation is incompatible with Islam.

"Also, it's curious that you seem to suggest that "installing" secular dictatorships may provide an answer."

If the question is "What government will run this rat hole with the fewest number of state sponsored murders?" That is, IMHO, the answer. The Muslims will not tolerate a state with the rule of law where the law is not the Shari'a.

"Democracy isn't easy and it can't be forced; "

I agree. Which is why we should hand over power to someone in June in Iraq, sell the various factions as much ammo as they can pay for and then televise the results. We did what we needed to do, knock off Saddam.